But at least with Auschwitz it gives a nice visual and alternate title for once.
<snooty spinster voice> We’re not supposed to say
Or so I’ve been told.
<shakes finger at Sampiro.
Other than that, I completely agree with you.
It drives me fucking bananas, and has done so since the first instance after Watergate. Am-scamgate (or something like that). Iran-Contra Gate. Hell, they could have gone for “Dome” instead, if they wanted to make things all cutesy.
“It was Watergate-Dome that brought down the Nixon White House!”
sigh
You’re assuming that the people who use the -gate naming convention have any idea what Teapot Dome might have been.
Word to that, my Dopuh.
In this post recently I gave the history of scandal naming. (SamClem was not amused and so injured my feminine side with his castigation I may not be able to bear children [actually I can’t bear them now, especially loud ones].)
Thank god you didn’t say “For shizzle, my niz . . .”
As long as we understand one another. <stops wagging finger in face>
The --gate thing is very old hat by now. I think the press uses it because [del]they are creatively bankrupt and practically illiterate[/del] nothing else has come along.
Maybe we should substitute shizzle (Buchenwaldshizzle, Snipershizzle, Reverend Wrightshizzle, etc.).
I don’t particularly like it either, but it was already called Auschwitzgate (and since Auschwitz actually had a gate and an infamous one at that [regardless of whose uncle opened it] it worked for a change), but… such is how word usage changes. I can see “gate” as a suffix meaning scandal in the future just the same as “red herring” and “credenza” are now said by people with no clue about their etymology.
They don’t trust him. But they’ve learned they can’t say why they don’t trust him, at least not in polite company. Perhaps they can’t even admit why they don’t trust him to themselves. So they have to find other justifications for their reflexive distrust, any after-the-fact justification they can find so that they can say “See, we were right all along!”
The alternative would be admitting that their distrustful instincts are wrong. And that’s the one thing they can’t be.
So his uncle "liberated " the Buchenwald WalMart?
Wow. I don’t think you could have posted something more bone-deep stupid than that without prior cranial trauma.
A photo of Ohrdruf after its liberation by U.S. troops. Remarkably little resemblance to WalMart. Note the distinct lack of greeters, or flashing lights indicating specials. Unless the dead people were the greeters, but if so they’re not wearing their little blue vests.
Another photo, from a website set up to honour the 89th infantry division. Also, you may note, nothing like WalMart. For one thing, no socks for sale. For another, many more corpses of starved prisoners.
It didn’t occur to me that Boyo was positing a serious analogy. Kinda doubt it.
My apologies to Boyo, then, if you’re correct. I’ve seen serious attempts at that analogy elsewhere on the internet and was momentarily dismayed at the possibility that this particular strain of stupid was infecting this board.
Obviously you haven’t read many of my posts. 
So noted 
(And yeah, I probably should have done just that before I opened fire…again, apologies.)
Wait… if it was really Buchenwald shouldn’t the title say “Jedem das Seine: Obama and AuschwitzGate?”
Then again… stupid smile at the camera to each his own.
How weak this story is doesn’t matter. It’ll be touted by his opponents as PART OF A LONG PATTERN OF GAFFES AND OUTRIGHT LIES! From here until the end of time, it’ll be part of a list (with no accompanying explanation of course) that’ll be released every once in a while just to “remind” people.
In my family there was an aunt that was a somewhat pivotal and popular figure. Everyone has referred to her as “Aunt Clementine.” We’ve done that for generations. If I had to be exact, she was actually my great-great-great aunt. But I call her what all of the other people in the family called her. It would have been unnatural to do otherwise.
Some folks are really beginning to strain to find flaws with Obama. They need to unlax just a little. After all, he is human and must have done something really awful at some point in his life.
Look, why are you paying any attention to whatever substantive issue Obama was trying to raise? That’s not important; the only thing that’s important is that HE MADE A MISTAKE! Clearly it proves he’s unfit for the presidency.
Get with the program, buster. :mad:
Well, the specific context of the speech was that vets returning from war zones are particularly susceptible to emotional and psychological trauma (as anecdotally exemplified by the story of Obama’s uncle), and that we, as a nation need to do a better job of caring for them. There are many points that can be made, but when the specific speech is addressing an issue (in which the Bush administration has been criminally negligent–IMO–and Senator McCain has provided only reluctant and tepid support), all the issues of dictators, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing are really not pertinent.
One issue at a time,otherwise one confuses the audience.